But he didn't Fred, it was unjust how his career ended, but to project how he would have done after the war and ignore his actual figures is pure speculation.
Additionally I don't think that Australia would have offered the new ball every 55 overs if Larwood was still around

btw, why is it only brought up that Bradman before the war played in near un paralleled batting conditions when we are discussing Larwoods bowling and not Bradman's career itself?
Just wondering out loud.

btw, why is it only brought up that Bradman before the war played in near un paralleled batting conditions when we are discussing Larwoods bowling and not Bradman's career itself?
Just wondering out loud.

Recognition of Property Rights in material objects is the recognition of a man’s right to exist; his right to pursue his own goals in his own manner at his own discretion with what is rightfully his to command. Just as the Right to Life is the right to the property of one’s own person, so the right to own material products is the right to sustain one’s life and to keep the results of one’s own efforts.

No he didn't - he actually played very little Test cricket but he succeeded twice, once spectacularly, on the fast bowler's graveyards that Australia produced between the wars, under the old lbw law. The fact that he was humbled by Bradman in 1930, when he was never properly fit is, to me, neither here nor there

If Larwood had played just after the war (new ball every 55 overs and seaming wickets) then I rather think that his average would have been a long way south of 20, and the casualty list a long one

I'm interested in your opinion on this Fred, as you seem knowledgable about England's cricket history.

Larwood played a limited number of tests, and in them had less statistical success than contemporaries Gubby Allen and Bill Voce. In FC cricket however, Larwood's stats stand out more (although they are still comparable to the other two mentioned). Gubby Allen, for instance, has very good FC stats as well, slightly inferior to Larwood's but somewhat similar.

Also, some have been suggesting that Larwood "revolutionised" quick bowling. I'm not sure that's the case. Australia had Jack Gregory bowling very quick a few years prior to Larwood's career, and Gregory had very similar stats in both tests and FC cricket to Larwood. Ted McDonald was another quick Australian pre-Larwood with a very refined quick bowler's action. McDonald, like Larwood, played few tests for what seems ordinary averages and stats, but a lot of FC games for excellent numbers.

No he didn't - he actually played very little Test cricket but he succeeded twice, once spectacularly, on the fast bowler's graveyards that Australia produced between the wars, under the old lbw law. The fact that he was humbled by Bradman in 1930, when he was never properly fit is, to me, neither here nor there

If Larwood had played just after the war (new ball every 55 overs and seaming wickets) then I rather think that his average would have been a long way south of 20, and the casualty list a long one

I've been watching some archive footage of Larwood and Lindwall in action on a video I bought recently (thanks Monk for the recommendation - it's excellent).

What struck me was how similar their respective bowling actions were. If Lindwall didn't have such a long drag with his right-foot then I'd say that they had identical actions. Even in slow motion it is very difficult to tell Larwood and Lindwall apart at the point of delivery.

Anyway, the point being that it is possible that Larwood and Lindwall could have had similar stat's if Larwood's was left uninterupted by Bodyline and injury. It is a big assumption to say that similar bowling actions translate into similar stat's. But it's not a bad assumption. Larwood could have quite easily ended up being England's version of Lindwall if fate had been different. But no better or greater than Lindwall because their bowling actions are almost identical.

So, if that's the case, and considering this is an ATG discussion thread, would you include Larwood in your World all time ATG team?

Great, eloquent post, and I agree with most of it. Numbers can be very misleading. They can also be very revealing though. And Larwood's contemporaries, in the same teams as him, against the same opposition, had better numbers.

The more I think about it, the more I would. To me, I'd go with something like this as the GOAT XI:

I've been watching some archive footage of Larwood and Lindwall in action on a video I bought recently (thanks Monk for the recommendation - it's excellent).

What struck me was how similar their respective bowling actions were. If Lindwall didn't have such a long drag with his right-foot then I'd say that they had identical actions. Even in slow motion it is very difficult to tell Larwood and Lindwall apart at the point of delivery.

Anyway, the point being that it is possible that Larwood and Lindwall could have had similar stat's if Larwood's was left uninterupted by Bodyline and injury. It is a big assumption to say that similar bowling actions translate into similar stat's. But it's not a bad assumption. Larwood could have quite easily ended up being England's version of Lindwall if fate had been different. But no better or greater than Lindwall because their bowling actions are almost identical.

Just a thought.

Lindwall actively modelled his action on Larwood's. At one point some Notts fans (IIRC, read it a few days ago and can't remember all the details) had a crack at him for copying Larwood. Lindwall shrugged his shoulders - saying something along the lines of "Why not copy the best?"

No he didn't - he actually played very little Test cricket but he succeeded twice, once spectacularly, on the fast bowler's graveyards that Australia produced between the wars, under the old lbw law. The fact that he was humbled by Bradman in 1930, when he was never properly fit is, to me, neither here nor there

If Larwood had played just after the war (new ball every 55 overs and seaming wickets) then I rather think that his average would have been a long way south of 20, and the casualty list a long one

Tangy with the goods I'd estimate a 20 average or thereabouts.

For me the best team would be...

Jager's XI

Jack Hobbs

Herbert Sutcliffe

Barry Richards

Don Bradman

Keith Miller*

Garfield Sobers

Mike Procter

Don Tallon †

Harold Larwood

-

-

The last spots can be any of 10. Verity/Warne/O'Reilly or 11. Marshall/Donald/Ambrose/Davidson/Waqar. Just can't choose!